Friday, May 3, 2013

The Kermit Gosnell Trial is Finishing Up

But the Media is Avoiding it

Ideas have consequences and evolution, the most influential theory in the history of science, has plenty of them. In addition to science, evolution influences such fields as public policy, media, education, history, philosophy, law, medicine and health care. Evolutionary thought is ubiquitous and underlies assumptions that may seem to be completely unrelated to the origin of species. On the other hand the path to evolution is sometimes easier to trace. For example, evolution encourages a reductionist, materialistic view of life. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” proclaims the Declaration of Independence, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But with evolution the Creator is distant and aloof, more like Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover whose main function is simply to initiate motion so we can avoid the problem of an infinite regress. Life just happened to happen. It seems there is no divine spark and consequently life loses an inherent and important property—those God-given unalienable Rights. So not surprisingly it was only a few short decades after Darwin that evolutionists were ramping up the modern eugenics movement. And not long behind was the abortion movement. When I explained the link between evolution and today’s abortion movement evolutionists had two responses. First, they vigorously denied any such link. Second, they vigorously defended abortion. It was another example of an internal contradiction within evolutionary thought which this week is on display in the final phases of the trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell.

It had all the making of the Trial of the Century. Gruesome and gory murders of innocent babies that are alleged to have been done over many years and with the full knowledge of assistants, peers and even government regulators. The implications are staggering and the trial provided a stream of increasingly shocking daily updates to keep the story alive. It is the kind of trial the media loves. There was only one problem: it was all about abortion.

You may not have heard much about Kermit Gosnell and his murder trial, for the media coverage has been spotty at best. And what coverage there has been has often been more euphemistic than factual. Consider Vivian Yee’s piece for last Sunday’s New York Times which described Gosnell as a doctor charged with killing “viable fetuses.”

For most people what Yee refers to as “viable fetuses” are simply “babies.” But evolutionists use euphemistic terminology to avoid the problem that abortion is a violation of the right to life. In fact the concept of viability is a long-standing attempt to rationalize abortion. Viability refers to the ability of a baby to survive outside the mother’s body. If the baby cannot survive then, so goes the argument, it has no right to life.

You can see the connection with evolution for which death and survival are key. It is natural selection and the survival of the fittest as those that are strong live and participate in evolution, whereas those that are weak die off. Jesus said “Blessed are the meek” but evolution celebrates the strong. As Nietzsche warned, it is the weak “who most undermine life among human beings.” If the baby cannot survive on its own, then it has no right to life.

The Gosnell trial reveals fundamental problems with evolutionary thought. Don’t count on hearing about it on the nightly news.

Well...Well...So we now finally have the evolutionists definition of dishonesty

Anything we do not like or agree with.

Problem is beliefs DO have consequences. Psychology 101. Its undeniable for any sensible person not drowning in the deep end of avoidance.

Does moral relativism grow and flourish under a belief that life is accidental and meaning a contrivance? Of course it does. Evolutionists need to put on their big boy pants and deal with the implications. To some of their credit some do come out and say what the honest implications are but most hide and try to fudge their way through with illogical claims of morality being consistent with evolutionary thought even though morality is a value statement in a universe that cannot possibly have it if they are correct.

and why do they bother with such logical gymnastics? Because they know the society at large NEEDS the morality that was established by religion or we would fall into pure savagery (cue the claims of injustices allegedly caused by religion). So they try to balance on the edge of dimes and contort into pretzels explaining why values can be derived from atheism and evolution but only succeed in taking a tumble as every one can see the fruit of the looms of that emperor with no clothes.

Still I love the moral outrage of having "stepped over a line" as if there are people that do have the right to set and foist their standards on others just as long as their names are not three letter words with G O and D in them.

Tell me, Cornelius, how many creationists have gotten voluntary abortions?

Since all religious people are creationists*, and since most of the people on Earth are religious, and since it's EXTREMELY unlikely that most or all of the women who have gotten voluntary abortions are atheists (what you mean by "evolutionists") there must be A LOT of god believers (creationists) getting voluntary abortions.

You always conveniently ignore the fact that many religious people (creationists) accept that evolution occurs (yeah, even 'macroevolution'). Doesn't that mean that they're "evolutionists"?

The so-called 'ID movement' that you're a part of also claims to accept that evolution occurs (at least 'microevolution') but that it is 'designed'. Why are you part of a 'movement' that accepts any form of evolution or evolutionary thought if evolution or evolutionary thought leads to abortion and eugenics?

And will you please learn the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution. You constantly mix them as though they're the same thing.

*Anyone who believes that there is a creator (aka god, designer, etc.) is a creationist.

Evolutionists make wild extrapolations and equivocations in support of their view.

Oily bubbles that form naturally is all they need to connect a billion imaginery dots to support their idea that the first proto-cell can spontaneously form from non-living matter. More imaginery dots to connect, the imagined proto-cell to the origin of the first cell. More imaginery dots to account for all the missing transistional fossils precambrian to present. Then hand-waving generalizations about convergent evolution and cascading convergent evolution in which most of the dots can't even be imagined.

Yet, when a short dark line is drawn between proponents of Darwinism to eugenics, evolutionists here have a hissy fit. When Charles Darwins nephew draws the line in public and promotes eugenics, we are to imagine that no such connection exists.

Evolutionists, not only like to cherry pick their supporting data, they like to cherry pick the affects of their philosophy on society. They love the part about nothing in biology makes sense without evolution but point out the distain for the weak by noted evolutionists of the past and you are called a "dishonest hack".

Sheesh... Then leave. You are not going to dictate on an Idist blog IDist viewpoint. In the short time here I have seen SEVERAL attacks on Theist IDist here claiming religion is responsible for various acts of violence without a peep from any of you. Now because we can see the clear connection between viewing life as having no meaning with it making it easier to take it you want to throw a hissy fit?

btw where was this civil dialogue atmosphere you speak of? Or is Thorton your idea of participants that create that kind of "atmosphere"?

Oleg, we understand that you don't like the connection, but you guys are making lots of assumptions based on what you think happened in the distant past, yet ignore the public statements of your proponents in recent history.

For example, part of your groups' aura and heritage comes from the Scopes trial. It is still held up by you folks as a propaganda tool. Yet, John Scopes' high school textbook that he used was teaching eugenics based on Darwinism.

Bad theories that are put on artifical life support breed wicked fruit.

"Here's a better idea - you leave instead of demanding censorship and banning for those who don't share your opinions. That's about as cowardly and un-American as you can get."

I'm officially bored. Surely there must be a childrens evolution board you can rave at. SO yea I will be calling for C to do more modding. IF he does you are free to stick around but you will just see your posts vanish if you can't stop with the name calling. Its simple.

"In the short time here I have seen SEVERAL attacks on Theist IDist here claiming religion is responsible for various acts of violence without a peep from any of you."

Religion is responsible for various acts of violence. Just ask the people of Boston, New York, the middle east, catholic boys, etc., and read the bible, the koran, etc. Darwin is not responsible for any acts of violence, unless of course any acts of violence he may have committed on living things to 'collect' them are considered, but that's not what is being argued here.

LOL TWH. Read a little history and come back. Dictatorships, Communist states and yeah even hitler had some Darwinism going on. For you to claim that Darwin wasn't responsible for any violence just shows the silliness of your bias.

What Violence did Jesus ever do but you indict all of christianity based on people who were not even following what he said. Yeah I read the Bible not cherry pick it like you hypocritically do son. I read the part where it says to do good to them that hate you and to love your enemies not blow them up but that doesn't stop you trained by talk origins and Richard Dawkins trying to lump Christianity all in one barrel with other religions because it suits your atheism to do so.

Cornelius as a relatively new reader here I do have one big criticism of your blog. I figure you probably wish to be as open as you can and think its a good thing or perhaps you don't have the time to moderate. I ask you to reconsider the decision of not modding or not getting someone to moderate.

Consider the vast majority of your readers that will never comment and those who would but not in this free for all environment.

Appoint a moderator if you don't have the time. Not to censor out viewpoints but to censor out all the junk that spoils your blog. I suspect that most people just give up and if they want to read you in a non childish environment just read Uncommon Descent.

Theres non stop insults, name calling, childish disrespect in almost every thread to you the owner and now even a poster claiming that he will now shower every one else with contempt because we hold a point of view he does not like.

I have even seen people discussing sports in comments. its just a mess. Perhaps your decision has those posters in mind but consider others not the name callers and those who can;t show the good manners to respect the blog owner. From what I have seen they have had a good run and could still participate but the sheenanigans just have to stop if you have any desire to grow the usefulness of your blog to more people..

I've never been for the freedom to insult people and name call like you do consistently. IF you want to claim that having adult standards of not entertaining name calling in posts or showing disrespect for the blog owner by not insulting him is censorship then feel free.

Thats the thing when you shriek and carry on all day every day. People stop taking you seriously.

Elijah, the name calling and immaturity mostly comes from the evolutionists here. I figure it fits with CH's theme. Give evolutionists a place to be what they really are... empty arguments and plently of name calling and little evidence.

Name calling is in direct proportion to the lack of ability to properly articulate an argument... which is difficult and frustrating for them because they have so little evidence to try to make their points.

"I figure it fits with CH's theme. Give evolutionists a place to be what they really are... empty arguments and plently of name calling and little evidence."

I'm not sure it even accomplishes that. I cannot say that all evolutionists behave this poorly. What the present policy does it attracts people who cannot engage the other side on any other blog because they can't behave themselves. this thread is a classical example. is there any engaging going on from their side?

None whatsoever. All we have are declarations of contempt and of all laughable things - moral outrage - which they allow no theists to make them bend to - with no evidence or explanation.

A basic standard at least has to be employed in any adult place of discourse. One of them is to respect other peoples property. You are not going to end up with any rational discourse with people who insist they don't have to.

Disagree with things and explain your disagreement but just hurling lying accusations and name calling incessantly post after post jsut makes this a circus.

Yet that's all Creationists like you and Tedford do, continually. It's a huge insult to both me and my professional colleagues when scientifically ignorant asses like you call us incompetent, or liars, or deliberate frauds in our work day in and day out. You Fundy asses think if you use nice polite language that somehow OKs the lies ,the quote-mining, the cowardly evasion of questions that are your stock and trade.

People have tried engaging both of you scientifically illiterate turds on technical topics but you're both way too ignorant to even begin. So cry us a river about how you guys are the victims of insults and harsh language. You jerks are every bit as obscene and insulting with your constant stream of Creationist misrepresentations and outright lies.

See Cornelius Thorton has been kind enough to give a perfect exhibit of the vile that is poured out on your blog day in and day out.

True it might no longer bother us much because he so over does it that we have gotten use to it but consider new people who don't hear the shrill sound of the train everyday and night until they get used to it. Its no good for your blog or the people who come here to read it. No one need be banned but theres no doubt about it -Many posts need some cleaning up or deletion.

and T if I even did believe you were old enough to be a professional scientist (Which I don't) you would be doing them no great service. You would only be a shining example of how some evolutionists are more guided by their hate than science.

If I had a hanky I would lend it to you to clean the foam from your lips.

"LOL! Once again the cowardly ignoramus Fundy whines for censorship. That's the only way his stupidity has any chance, if the scientifically knowledgeable posters are silenced."

Well T if you are saying that the only way you can communicate is the way you do now then yes I will keep asking for C to clean up the blog. Cry whatever you like. You are just afraid he might wake up one day and realize your freedoms to post do not overrule the rights of his other visitors to not deal with your childish vile each day.

I actually think a great many evolutionists here will do fine in an adult environment expressing their views like adults. Your anxiety though is understandable because it doesn't seem like you could survive without the name calling and insults. Your points are most of the time too weak to stand by themselves.

LOL! The smug self-righteous "holier-than-thou schtick doesn't work when you're still too much of a scientifically ignorant knob to back up a single thing you say.

I guess whining about everyone else's behavior while you yourself keep acting like a belligerent horse's ass is all you've got. It does have the benefit of making you look like a raging hypocrite though.

Sorry Eugen. Asking that there be moderation of cursing , name calling and slander in no logical universe implies I am campaigning for the job. I wouldn't have the time and having to read ALL the drivel everyday would not interest me in the least

lol...on scientific natters your head has been handed to you many times. It wasn't but weeks ago you were arguing vociferously that cancer never has an inherited cause

LOL! Now the clueless Creationist is going to resort to that favorite Creationist tactic - lying his ass off.

You're the idiot who claimed cancer is inherited. I corrected you and pointed out it's the susceptibility to cancer that can be inherited, not the cancer itself. I also backed it up with multiple scientific papers and studies. All you did was repeat your same lie.

I doubt you've ever read a scientific paper in your life. But like everything else you've posted here, you have to lie to make yourself feel better.

"Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof; or ABRIDGING the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It means freedom of religion. To believe or not to believe. It does not mean one can't share their faith in the open or in public. It does not mean that anyone who claims to be offended has the right to silence someone elses faith. It does not mean that anti-God people can bully people of faith to exercise it only in secret or private. It does not mean society is to promote a God-phobic atomosphere. It means what it says.

It means that in this country if you don't want to believe you have the right to express yourself, seek converts, advertise... but not to shutdown the exercise of a faith you do not like.

This freedom was written into the Bill of Rights by people of Christian faith who saw the value of freedom. This freedom did not come from the hands of atheists. The atheists hands created the utopian experiment of the former USSR - and we all know how that turned out.

Atheists like to argue about strawmen that want to establish a state run Christian church. Who is doing this? Give me their names. What is the name of their amendment and how many signatures do they have?

It isn't atheist groups who are working to secure the rights of the unborn. If you can name one, by all means inform us. It is primarily faith based groups that are working to secure their rights.

The best long term way for atheists to ensure their continued freedom to speak and believe what they want is to allow the Christian faith to flourish in the lives of those who choose it.

"It isn't atheist groups who are working to secure the rights of the unborn. If you can name one, by all means inform us. It is primarily faith based groups that are working to secure their rights."

The thing is Neil if atheists really believed in the value of human life, morality and then tied that to their allegedly roots in biology in any coherent manner they would be anti-abortionists.

We might forgive the biologically uneducated being tricked into the whole Fetus-baby switch but how would any biologist classify a "fetus"? It meets the scientific classification of life as even an amoeba would and to what species would we assign it? - human of course. What else?

So atheistic evolutionist ought to be on the front line telling society that the argument that a fetus is not human life is bogus.

They don't because either they don't like or care where the science leads, they haven't thought about it or they think situational ethics overrides the fact that a fetus is life belonging to the Human species.

Yes, the motivation for many deeds of compassion spring from the teachings and lifestyle of Jesus Christ. Those who are serious followers of Christ have great motivation to personally serve mankind and stand for the rights of the smallest among us - the unborn.

It means freedom of religion. To believe or not to believe. It does not mean one can't share their faith in the open or in public

No idiot, freedom of religion doesn't give you the right to proselytize to others as much as you want whenever you want, especially to fellow employes while they are on the job. Just like freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater.

That is what the military rules against Godbothering are about. You can believe whatever you want on your own time and in your own space but you can't force others to listen to your preaching. This is especially true in the military where such actions risk damaging critical group cohesion and unity.

That's right. And the only way to free of any religious oppression is to ensure that no one faith ever gets the upper hand in the body politic.

It does not mean one can't share their faith in the open or in public.

Share, yes. Force, no.

If someone chooses to go to a church or temple or mosque to take part in the services and listen to the sermons then that's fine.

If, on the other hand, a child in school has to attend a morning assembly, sing Christian hymns and recite Christian prayers even though they don't believe in them then that's wrong.

It does not mean that anyone who claims to be offended has the right to silence someone elses faith.

Absolutely right. There is not, nor should there be, any right not to be offended. This is why measures to prevent people of faith being offended by those who don't share that faith are a breach of human rights as well as being unconstitutional.

It does not mean that anti-God people can bully people of faith to exercise it only in secret or private.

Quite right, although I don't actually see that happening. If anything the reverse has been true, that up until recently it is non-believers have had to keep very quiet about their atheism for fear of the consequences. As for practicing one's faith in private, you are no doubt familair with Matthew 6:5-6:

5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

It means that in this country if you don't want to believe you have the right to express yourself, seek converts, advertise... but not to shutdown the exercise of a faith you do not like.

If the exercise of your faith involves coercion of others then it oversteps the bounds of free exercise. The natural limit of any right is where it infringes on the rights of others.

This freedom was written into the Bill of Rights by people of Christian faith who saw the value of freedom. This freedom did not come from the hands of atheists. The atheists hands created the utopian experiment of the former USSR - and we all know how that turned out.

The Founding Fathers represented a range of beliefs. Some were devout Christians, others near-atheists. What they feared and were anxious to prevent was the sort of religious intolerance and oppression endemic in the Europe they'd left and which had spread to parts of the New World. Remember the treatment of Quakers by the Puritans of New England?

Atheists like to argue about strawmen that want to establish a state run Christian church. Who is doing this? Give me their names. What is the name of their amendment and how many signatures do they have?

They're few in number and relatively harmless, for the moment at leat. If you want a flavor, start with the Wikipedia entries on Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism

It isn't atheist groups who are working to secure the rights of the unborn. If you can name one, by all means inform us. It is primarily faith based groups that are working to secure their rights.

I believe a lot of anti-abortionists are genuinely motivated by concern for the rights of the unborn. Unfortunately, the purity of that motivation is tainted in some by an almost medieval attitude towrds the role of women in the family and in society.

The best long term way for atheists to ensure their continued freedom to speak and believe what they want is to allow the Christian faith to flourish in the lives of those who choose it.

I thought the numbers have shown for a long time that faith is flourishing in the US, which makes it so odd that Christians should be panicking about atheism's very modest gains

I believe that the right to life should extend back to conception so, on this at least,it's one of the rare cases where I agree with Dr Hunter.

There is good evidence, however, that abortion was being practiced for thousands of years before Darwin published his theory. Even if evolution has been enlisted as a justification for abortion it is simply opportunism, it commits the naturalistic fallacy and it has no bearing on whether the theory is good science.

"Even if evolution has been enlisted as a justification for abortion it is simply opportunism, it commits the naturalistic fallacy and it has no bearing on whether the theory is good science."

Actually I can agree with you on the second part. It has no bearing on whether the theory is good science. Thats a sound point. I'm pretty sure it is considered by C to be bad science on other grounds. However In fairness both sides open themselves up to moral arguments since many of the popularizers of religion AND Atheistic Evolution do make claims of moral supremacy in one shape or the other.

The first part is iffy logically though. The fact that murder existed previous to an ideology does not exclude it from being a cause of present murders (or you can replace that with any other crimes). The fact that slavery in many places existed prior to slavery based on skin color/ethnicity does not mean that racism cannot be cited as a cause for slavery later in human history.

The first part is iffy logically though. The fact that murder existed previous to an ideology does not exclude it from being a cause of present murders (or you can replace that with any other crimes). The fact that slavery in many places existed prior to slavery based on skin color/ethnicity does not mean that racism cannot be cited as a cause for slavery later in human history.

I think we can make the case that the theory of evolution is not a necessary cause of abortion. It may have been argued as a sufficient cause by those looking to justify a decision possibly made on other grounds but that is no argument against the theory. Many advances in scientific knowledge can and have been applied to making weapons but does that mean we should not search for new knowledge in the first place?

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/